ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: abeybaby on August 27, 2012, 12:26:56 pm
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9492504/Tasmania-considers-cigarette-ban-for-anyone-born-after-2000.html
I'm genuinely not sure how I feel about this. It will certainly save lives and save public hospital money, however, it would come at the cost of:
1) freedom to choose
2) bottom line of many retailers (would certainly close many tobacconists)
I think I'm against this one.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9492504/Tasmania-considers-cigarette-ban-for-anyone-born-after-2000.html
I'm genuinely not sure how I feel about this. It will certainly save lives and save public hospital money, however, it would come at the cost of:
1) freedom to choose
2) bottom line of many retailers (would certainly close many tobacconists)
I think I'm against this one.
I'm also against this one.
As you said, it certainly impedes upon the rights of individuals to choose to smoke and will eventually result on tobacconists closing down.
Also, it won't actually stop them from buying cigarettes, anyway. They can still ask other people to buy it for them, and some tobacconists will sell it to them anyway. It's almost redundant.
-
Also, it won't actually stop them from buying cigarettes, anyway. They can still ask other people to buy it for them, and some tobacconists will sell it to them anyway. It's almost redundant.
I thought about this, and sure, that will be true from say 2018 to maybe say 2050, but the point is that by roughly 2080, the ENTIRE Tasmanian populace will be smoke free. Also, say you're a smoke from qld, and you wanna visit tassie. If you can't buy cigarettes, you won't visit. It would damage tourism as well..
-
Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.
-
Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.
see thats why im conflicted - is putting retailers out of business, damaging tourism and trampling over people's right to choose worth the lives it will save? i dont have a definitive answer at all.. but yes, id also support a bill for no smoking in public except in some designated areas, like smoking restaurants/bars etc
-
Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.
see thats why im conflicted - is putting retailers out of business, damaging tourism and trampling over people's right to choose worth the lives it will save? i dont have a definitive answer at all.. but yes, id also support a bill for no smoking in public except in some designated areas, like smoking restaurants/bars etc
Has it ever been thought that many of those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors? Plus, once you're in smoking, it's quite...difficult to quit. Stupid nicotine and its addictive nature. So in that case they weren't really free to choose...
So either way choice is being impeded...so I'm not buying the "freedom of choice" argument.
For this reason, along with the fact that OTHERS are being harmed by YOUR smoking (second hand smoke blah blah), I support significant restrictions on smoking. As for a total ban, I'm not going to project an opinion here; I'd like a complete ban, but smoking has been so entrenched in business that a complete ban may not be practical.
However, I may be wrong in making that grand assumption that 'those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors.'
-
Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.
see thats why im conflicted - is putting retailers out of business, damaging tourism and trampling over people's right to choose worth the lives it will save? i dont have a definitive answer at all.. but yes, id also support a bill for no smoking in public except in some designated areas, like smoking restaurants/bars etc
Has it ever been thought that many of those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors? Plus, once you're in smoking, it's quite...difficult to quit. Stupid nicotine and its addictive nature. So in that case they weren't really free to choose...
So either way choice is being impeded...so I'm not buying the "freedom of choice" argument.
For this reason, along with the fact that OTHERS are being harmed by YOUR smoking (second hand smoke blah blah), I support significant restrictions on smoking. As for a total ban, I'm not going to project an opinion here; I'd like a complete ban, but smoking has been so entrenched in business that a complete ban may not be practical.
However, I may be wrong in making that grand assumption that 'those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors.'
I think you're partly correct that it begins because of social factors but then becomes a part of an individual's daily routine.
Just wish the darn things were never invented!
-
Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.
see thats why im conflicted - is putting retailers out of business, damaging tourism and trampling over people's right to choose worth the lives it will save? i dont have a definitive answer at all.. but yes, id also support a bill for no smoking in public except in some designated areas, like smoking restaurants/bars etc
Has it ever been thought that many of those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors? Plus, once you're in smoking, it's quite...difficult to quit. Stupid nicotine and its addictive nature. So in that case they weren't really free to choose...
So either way choice is being impeded...so I'm not buying the "freedom of choice" argument.
For this reason, along with the fact that OTHERS are being harmed by YOUR smoking (second hand smoke blah blah), I support significant restrictions on smoking. As for a total ban, I'm not going to project an opinion here; I'd like a complete ban, but smoking has been so entrenched in business that a complete ban may not be practical.
However, I may be wrong in making that grand assumption that 'those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors.'
Sure, people are influenced by sociocultural factors - but the choice is still theirs, and it is their free will. Society is not to 'blame' per se, sure, it doesn't always help, but it's not the CAUSE of people smoking. People still need to decide to smoke or not
-
Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.
see thats why im conflicted - is putting retailers out of business, damaging tourism and trampling over people's right to choose worth the lives it will save? i dont have a definitive answer at all.. but yes, id also support a bill for no smoking in public except in some designated areas, like smoking restaurants/bars etc
Has it ever been thought that many of those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors? Plus, once you're in smoking, it's quite...difficult to quit. Stupid nicotine and its addictive nature. So in that case they weren't really free to choose...
So either way choice is being impeded...so I'm not buying the "freedom of choice" argument.
For this reason, along with the fact that OTHERS are being harmed by YOUR smoking (second hand smoke blah blah), I support significant restrictions on smoking. As for a total ban, I'm not going to project an opinion here; I'd like a complete ban, but smoking has been so entrenched in business that a complete ban may not be practical.
However, I may be wrong in making that grand assumption that 'those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors.'
Sure, people are influenced by sociocultural factors - but the choice is still theirs, and it is their free will. Society is not to 'blame' per se, sure, it doesn't always help, but it's not the CAUSE of people smoking. People still need to decide to smoke or not.
But it's not actually about NOT helping, it's actively forcing.
-
The choice argument is compelling, but as mentioned above, it doesn't make much sense to talk about choice unless we talk about all the things that are thrusted upon us too. Not many people are so privileged that they get to be a pure product of their own choices. That's not to say that personal responsibility isn't important either, it just operates in a complex context (why, for instance, are there so many smokers who are financially disadvantaged given that cigarettes cost so damn much?).
The way Australia is arranged currently as well is that we all pay for smoking in various ways - we all know someone who is sick or has died from the effects of smoking, we've all experienced second-hand smoke involuntarily, eventually our tax dollars pay for the care and treatment of people who have spent their lives smoking. Yes, smoking is an individual choice, but it can hardly be said that the ramifications are purely individual (it's the same with many of the choices we make for ourselves).
Aside from looking at smoking as a nasty habit, it might also be worth understanding it as a coping mechanism, and trying to figure out how it helps people beyond the fact that it's addictive. Is it most commonly taken up by the hard done by? The alienated? The disenfranchised? Maybe instead of banning cigarettes, we could do more to discover and address the causes of smoking. That might be win/win, because we wouldn't be taking away personal choice, but we could help people who don't feel the personal agency necessary to quit.
As an aside, the fact that places that sell tobacco will go out of business isn't really important if you admit that it's bad to make money off others' addictions. As in, by itself it isn't a great reason to allow smoking.
-
good on tassie.
hope they ban it.
-
Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.
What? If you want the freedom of choice, it's a god damn choice, not the freedom to make the right choice. You contradict the very premise of freedom of choice by claiming there is a correct choice.
Anyways, if people choose to harm themselves without harming others, then so be it. Banning smoking in public places is very reasonable, and it should be a more widespread practice. Having specific sections for smokers is also a good practice (see: all bars). Banning an entire age bracket is just totally stupid.
The government does not, and will never, have the authority to tell me what life choices I can and cannot make.
-
The government does not, and will never, have the authority to tell me what life choices I can and cannot make.
1. same sex marriage - gov. doesnt recognise it
2. illicit drugs - jail
3. child pornogaphy - jail
4. having sex with a minor - jail
5. bashing someone up -jail
etc etc
point is, the government sort of does... lol.
if theyre banning smoking its for the good!
-
Has it ever been thought that many of those who DO choose to smoke do not do it out of their own free will, but out of peer pressure and other sociocultural factors? Plus, once you're in smoking, it's quite...difficult to quit. Stupid nicotine and its addictive nature. So in that case they weren't really free to choose...
So either way choice is being impeded...so I'm not buying the "freedom of choice" argument.
I shall entertain the thought that people who take up smoking do so under peer pressure and other sociocultural factors. Let me ask you this:
Can the subject make a well-informed decision to smoke or not smoke?
With the amount of government advertising and with the current level of social awareness, I think anyone with eyes, ears and half a brain knows smoking kills. The subject making the decision is aware of the consequences (i.e. lung cancer, death, etc).
Who makes the ultimate decision to smoke or not smoke?
Obviously, the person himself/herself. I have never heard of a case where someone is grievously injured because they did not smoke under peer pressure. If the subject makes a decision to smoke (under peer pressure), but does not want the consequences (of lung cancer), then I argue this person does not qualify to be an adult. If you want to make a decision on smoking for this subject, then all other adult privileges should also be taken away (no alcohol, mandatory contraceptives, etc).
If we take your argument to the extreme (I realise this is reducto ad absurdum, but this is where the slippery slope goes), you are saying people shouldn't be treated as adults, their poor decisions can be corrected by you making decisions for them.
-
The government does not, and will never, have the authority to tell me what life choices I can and cannot make.
1. same sex marriage - gov. doesnt recognise it
2. illicit drugs - jail
3. child pornogaphy - jail
4. having sex with a minor - jail
5. bashing someone up -jail
etc etc
point is, the government sort of does... lol.
if theyre banning smoking its for the good!
Anyone can do whatever they want, regardless of what the government dictates. They just have to face the consequences of their actions, should it conflict with laws.
-
The government does not, and will never, have the authority to tell me what life choices I can and cannot make.
1. same sex marriage - gov. doesnt recognise it
2. illicit drugs - jail
3. child pornogaphy - jail
4. having sex with a minor - jail
5. bashing someone up -jail
etc etc
point is, the government sort of does... lol.
if theyre banning smoking its for the good!
I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
1. we all agree same sex marriage should be allowed, the government is being stupid
2. I argue that illicit drugs should be legalised, I think the government is also being stupid here, but that's another can of worms
3. child pornography severely affects children, this choice does not come without harming the children, so naturally it should be banned
4. same as above
5. same as above
Regardless of the things you listed, the government should be REMOVING the number of stupid laws it has, rather than increasing this number. And by stupid laws, I mean laws where the government is making my life choices for me.
I can smoke all I want without forcing second hand smoking onto you. As far as I'm concerned, me smoking does not affect the rest of the public. What good is that achieving then? A law that makes my health better? We go back to the original point, the government doesn't have the right to make my life choices for me.
-
At least they are honest about it. Better than heavy taxation on a product with an inelastic demand fueled by addiction
-
Anyone can do whatever they want, regardless of what the government dictates. They just have to face the consequences of their actions, should it conflict with laws.
yea..
so if smoking is banned, then as per the law, you dont have the 'authority' to smoke. - legally.
I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
1. we all agree same sex marriage should be allowed, the government is being stupid
2. I argue that illicit drugs should be legalised, I think the government is also being stupid here, but that's another can of worms
3. child pornography severely affects children, this choice does not come without harming the children, so naturally it should be banned
4. same as above
5. same as above
Regardless of the things you listed, the government should be REMOVING the number of stupid laws it has, rather than increasing this number. And by stupid laws, I mean laws where the government is making my life choices for me.
I can smoke all I want without forcing second hand smoking onto you. As far as I'm concerned, me smoking does not affect the rest of the public. What good is that achieving then? A law that makes my health better? We go back to the original point, the government doesn't have the right to make my life choices for me.
Ooo haha , what i meant to say was... the government does have the authority to tell us what to do or what not to do. technically.
take my examples from before, say drugs - ok yeah for sure, have some eckie pills, but if you get busted with them, the law will turn on you. why? cos' the government has had the authority to make the law, and the coppers have enforced this law by chuckin you in jail. in turn, the government has had the 'authority' to tell you what you cant do!
with same sex marriage, the gvt has the authority of telling me, no, you cant do that.
if i wanted to smoke weed right now, i could. but the government has imposed a ban on it, and technically they have had the authority to do that. so, in turn they have the authority to tell me what i cant do.
.. if you get what i mean?!
if they ban smoking, then the government will technically, perhaps in a more legal perspective, have the authority of telling the kids born post 2000 that they cannot smoke.
-
@Bhoot- I smoke. I'm under 18. What's the government doing?
-
@Bhoot- I smoke. I'm under 18. What's the government doing?
Zilch, they'd argue that they have more pressing priorities.
-
There is no law against minors smoking in victoria afaik...?
-
Should have said I purchase alcohol and cigarettes and I'm under 18.
-
Should have said I purchase alcohol and cigarettes and I'm under 18.
Curse. Not a big fan of EtOH tbh...or agonists at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors...
-
Should have said I purchase alcohol and cigarettes and I'm under 18.
if thats the case, then my point still stands.
the government has still somewhere, at some point had the authority to tell you what you can or cannot do.
to do, or not to do, is your choice however.
and if you didnt get caught, i guess its negligence on their part, or your luck (even tho like everyone does it, but for arguments sake!)
-
Ooo haha , what i meant to say was... the government does have the authority to tell us what to do or what not to do. technically.
take my examples from before, say drugs - ok yeah for sure, have some eckie pills, but if you get busted with them, the law will turn on you. why? cos' the government has had the authority to make the law, and the coppers have enforced this law by chuckin you in jail. in turn, the government has had the 'authority' to tell you what you cant do!
with same sex marriage, the gvt has the authority of telling me, no, you cant do that.
if i wanted to smoke weed right now, i could. but the government has imposed a ban on it, and technically they have had the authority to do that. so, in turn they have the authority to tell me what i cant do.
.. if you get what i mean?!
if they ban smoking, then the government will technically, perhaps in a more legal perspective, have the authority of telling the kids born post 2000 that they cannot smoke.
No, you are not understanding my point.
I'm not talking about the powers of law. Of course, if someone disobeys the law, they are punished. That is not the point of the argument.
The point of the argument is the validity of some laws. We are questioning whether or not certain laws should be made. And I argue that certain laws, including a possible law which bans smoking for an entire age bracket, is inherently stupid and should not become a law.
-
(I don't actually smoke but said I did for illustrative purposes. I'm almost 18 an have seen 13-14 year olds puffing away)
-
The government does not, and will never, have the authority to tell me what life choices I can and cannot make.
1. same sex marriage - gov. doesnt recognise it
2. illicit drugs - jail
3. child pornogaphy - jail
4. having sex with a minor - jail
5. bashing someone up -jail
etc etc
point is, the government sort of does... lol.
if theyre banning smoking its for the good!
I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
1. we all agree same sex marriage should be allowed, the government is being stupid
2. I argue that illicit drugs should be legalised, I think the government is also being stupid here, but that's another can of worms
3. child pornography severely affects children, this choice does not come without harming the children, so naturally it should be banned
4. same as above
5. same as above
Regardless of the things you listed, the government should be REMOVING the number of stupid laws it has, rather than increasing this number. And by stupid laws, I mean laws where the government is making my life choices for me.
I can smoke all I want without forcing second hand smoking onto you. As far as I'm concerned, me smoking does not affect the rest of the public. What good is that achieving then? A law that makes my health better? We go back to the original point, the government doesn't have the right to make my life choices for me.
Mao, Can I ask why you actually started in the first place?
-
Mao, Can I ask why you actually started in the first place?
Sure.
I wanted to experience it initially out of curiosity. I have chosen to continue because I find certain social interactions are smoother, and it also reflects on my attitude that I don't take most things that seriously. But neither of these are 'good' reasons. If you want the simple answer, I do it because I can, because of the shock value, and because I am willing to face the consequences.
I have quit cold turkey several times to make sure the addiction is under control, and I am keeping a close eye on my health so to make sure no serious damage is dealt (though if there is, it's my own bloody choice and I'll live with it). I take care in checking with people in my immediate vicinity that they're okay with me smoking. I think all in all, I'm pretty responsible when it comes to this particular lifestyle choice.
-
Mao, your reasons are heavily base on your external world - do you only smoke in the presence others? Your choices don't seem to apply to when you're alone.
I'm unsure on my position on the legislation, I'll think more and reply later.
-
No, you are not understanding my point.
I'm not talking about the powers of law. Of course, if someone disobeys the law, they are punished. That is not the point of the argument.
The point of the argument is the validity of some laws. We are questioning whether or not certain laws should be made. And I argue that certain laws, including a possible law which bans smoking for an entire age bracket, is inherently stupid and should not become a law.
oh nah, i understand - what i said was only in reference to when you said that the gvmt. has no authority over what you do or what you dont do.
but ok, regarding the actual issue .
if they did ban smoking for people born post-2000, wouldnt it lead to a decrease in smoking?
im talking about the future here.
If this bill is passed, i wouldnt say its getting rid of our freedom, because in the end, these are the types of things i'd like to see from our gvmt.
(and smoking is not comparable to the gvmt. banning like... curries! curries dont destroy us (unless theyre spicy as hell)).
on the other hand, smoking kills. classic case - we know it. most of us have somehow, directly or indirectly been affected by cancer which was influenced by smoking - , so taking that into perspective, isnt the government going to be doing something beneficial? the cost of tobacco - its something to think about. once someones hooked onto it, the addictive nature of it will mean you keep on spending precious money on it.
economically it'd favour the people of tasmania?
yes, its the persons choice to smoke in the end.
but if we ban it, then we'll be not be doing anything bad imo, and so in turn itll be a more positive outcome..
-
Mao, your reasons are heavily base on your external world - do you only smoke in the presence others? Your choices don't seem to apply to when you're alone.
I sometimes do it when I'm alone. I find it therapeutic when I need the thinking space.
-
Better than heavy taxation on a product with an inelastic demand fueled by addiction
While tobacco demand is not as elastic as many other daily consumables, there is no doubt that price exerts a profound impact on tobacco consumption. Increasing price is universally associated with reduced uptake, decreased consumption and increased quitting. It is likely the most significant single factor implicated in the massive decrease of smoking uptake and consumption since the 1990s.
As such I think gradually pricing it out of the mainstream market until it is an expensive boutique habit is a good, realistic strategy. Unfortunately in the interim, those from a lower socioeconomic background (with the highest levels of tobacco uptake and consumption) are going to be impacted more than other groups. Still, I find this strategy better than adding yet another drug to the crimes act.
That said, superficially, the post-2000 ban sounds like a reasonable policy as far as the war on drugs goes, so long as there is flexibility with how they penalise people for contraventions.
-
I don't understand something though, if you're pro choice for cigarette smoking then you would technically have to be pro choice for other drugs like marijuana for instance as well - right?
Personally I'm divided, the truth is I'm also pro choice in that I wish we could just do anything as long as nobody else is harmed, however in this case many are harmed, passive smokers, the general public who pay for the health care of smokers, the families of the smokers...etc. not to mention those who grow up thinking smoking is cool and get into it.
-
take my examples from before, say drugs - ok yeah for sure, have some eckie pills, but if you get busted with them, the law will turn on you. why? cos' the government has had the authority to make the law, and the coppers have enforced this law by chuckin you in jail. in turn, the government has had the 'authority' to tell you what you cant do!
If laws are made to protect people from themselves, then there is evidence that horse-riding is more dangerous and addictive than ecstasy (study was done for the UK, but probably applies here too).
I agree with Mao, laws should not infringe of the rights of the individual to do as they want, but should be present to protect others (i.e. ban smoking in public spaces, but never smoking itself.)
-
Increasing price is universally associated with reduced uptake, decreased consumption and increased quitting. It is likely the most significant single factor implicated in the massive decrease of smoking uptake and consumption since the 1990s.
How so and implicated by whom? I don't deny that it doesn't work on some level, but you can't just isolate and champion taxes alone. Keep in mind that along taxation, huge sums of money were put into scare campaigns, enacting laws and education.
Unfortunately in the interim, those from a lower socioeconomic background (with the highest levels of tobacco uptake and consumption) are going to be impacted more than other groups. Still, I find this strategy better than adding yet another drug to the crimes act.
Even in the long term, without proper education, taxation would only end up acting as a wealth transfer from the lower brackets.
-
I don't understand something though, if you're pro choice for cigarette smoking then you would technically have to be pro choice for other drugs like marijuana for instance as well - right?
Of course. I see no good reason to make marijuana, or in fact any illicit drugs, ilegal. Just tax them let people be.
Personally I'm divided, the truth is I'm also pro choice in that I wish we could just do anything as long as nobody else is harmed, however in this case many are harmed, passive smokers, the general public who pay for the health care of smokers, the families of the smokers...etc. not to mention those who grow up thinking smoking is cool and get into it.
I think the passive smoking problem is mostly fixed, with smoking banned indoors and family venues. In my experience, who don't wish to smoke generally don't encounter much passive smoking.
The argument for health care is moot, at least in Australia. Tobacco is overtaxed in Australia, and the return covers more than the burden of health care, so the public doesn't pay. In fact, the public profits.
The peer pressure argument is in my opinion silly. Underage smoking should be prohibited, but people grow up to be adults, and they are educated in the effects of smoking. They can take responsibilities for their own decisions.
-
Normally I'm pro-libertarian, but I don't buy the freedom of choice argument in this case because it is fairly obvious that the correct ('correct') 'informed choice' is to not smoke. I'd support a bill that bans smoking in any public place or any area where others may reasonably be exposed, even if you don't want to ban tobacco outright.
What? If you want the freedom of choice, it's a god damn choice, not the freedom to make the right choice. You contradict the very premise of freedom of choice by claiming there is a correct choice.
That's why it's in inverted commas. My point was that smoking kills blah blah, so making a rational decision to smoke would seem to be rather contradictory. I don't buy 'freedom of choice' to make choices that will probably negatively impact others, which is why I want public smoking banned but also wouldn't particularly care if tobacco was banned. This may be a difference of opinion, which is where I'm happy to leave it.
-
The argument for health care is moot, at least in Australia. Tobacco is overtaxed in Australia, and the return covers more than the burden of health care, so the public doesn't pay. In fact, the public profits.
This comment reminds me of something Michael Marmot (a UK professor of Epidemiology and Public Health) said, that basically if we were concerned with the national health budget, the state would actually be better off if every low income person was given free cigarettes and died early as a result of their smoking, because it would mean that we wouldn't have to support them in old age. The problem is, it's totally immoral to play political/ideological games with peoples lives. Maybe the public profits overall from smoking, that doesn't mean we lose out substantially from so many preventable deaths. It's probably not what you meant, but I found that point to be quite harsh.
While people are responsible for themselves and their actions, I just think it would be good if we lived in a society that was kind and was willing to help people out when necessary. It's one thing if someone chooses to smoke and happily does it, but they should know what they are doing and they should have resources to turn to if they want to quit. If the future is so bleak that an expensive smoking addiction that has a high chance of killing you is considered to be a good option, then it's worth entertaining the idea that this person might need some help. You shouldn't and can't force anyone to get help, but it should be there.
-
The problems that I think should be addressed with regards to smoking are:
* Once again second hand smoke. Mao you mention that you are pretty respectful when it comes to smoking around others, however this by no means is a reflection of every smoker. The amount of times i've had to walk to the city through a cloud of smoke.. well i've lost count.
* The litter. Have you seen some of the melbourne city streets? Some people don't even have the decency to walk up to a god damn bin.
-
The problems that I think should be addressed with regards to smoking are:
* Once again second hand smoke. Mao you mention that you are pretty respectful when it comes to smoking around others, however this by no means is a reflection of every smoker. The amount of times i've had to walk to the city through a cloud of smoke.. well i've lost count.
* The litter. Have you seen some of the melbourne city streets? Some people don't even have the decency to walk up to a god damn bin.
Agree on both accounts. Without intentionally tooting my own horn, I think I'm part of the minority, and that is the basis of my argument. Whilst a blanket legislation seems nice, why should my freedom be taken away when I've done nothing wrong?
There should be more legislation towards literring, towards second hand smoking and so forth, but a blanket legislation is a silly idea.
That's why it's in inverted commas. My point was that smoking kills blah blah, so making a rational decision to smoke would seem to be rather contradictory. I don't buy 'freedom of choice' to make choices that will probably negatively impact others, which is why I want public smoking banned but also wouldn't particularly care if tobacco was banned. This may be a difference of opinion, which is where I'm happy to leave it.
I agree with banning public smoking, and create certain smoking areas (such as in some airports and most bars). I think most sensible people will agree with you there. But this concept is completely different from having a blanket ban on an entire age bracket.
-
Emotionally I want to say the ban is fantastic and a brilliant solution to what is nothing but detrimental. I was thinking along the lines of whilst there is freedom of choice, we aren't left to be completely autonomous. I was likening the justification of the blanket ban to the justification of forcing suicidal people into treatment when they're a danger to themselves or others. And whilst smoking is a 'danger' in that it causes harm, the thing that separated it from self-harm was the intention.
That being said, a government telling an individual what they can and cannot do with their own body is a scary one and reminds me of any sort of oppressive dictatorship. Logically, I can't support the idea of taking away freedom to choose, regardless of the benefits.
I don't understand something though, if you're pro choice for cigarette smoking then you would technically have to be pro choice for other drugs like marijuana for instance as well - right?
Of course. I see no good reason to make marijuana, or in fact any illicit drugs, ilegal. Just tax them let people be.
How would you justify making Ice accessible to people when it potentially harms others?
-
I don't understand something though, if you're pro choice for cigarette smoking then you would technically have to be pro choice for other drugs like marijuana for instance as well - right?
Of course. I see no good reason to make marijuana, or in fact any illicit drugs, ilegal. Just tax them let people be.
How would you justify making Ice accessible to people when it potentially harms others?
Irresponsible use and accessibility are two different things. Analogies can be drawn between ice and tobacco, even though ice is much more extreme. Just like how responsible smoking can avoid causing second hand inhalation, responsible ice usage can avoid harming others, just that the measures must be much more strict. It is difficult to implement, but in principle it should be accessible (provided the usage is responsible).
-
If Mao or anyone else smokes when no one else is around, who is harmed? I agree that the government should prevent people from smoking in public places, educate the public on its harms etc. but what right do you have to stop him from smoking if no one else is directly harmed? I believe that in a free society, people must be allowed to make decisions that others consider foolish or stupid (with some exceptions for extremely harmful acts of course). But, I don't think that cigarettes are so harmful that we should ban people from buying or using them, regardless of their date of birth.
-
How would you justify making Ice accessible to people when it potentially harms others?
Irresponsible use and accessibility are two different things. Analogies can be drawn between ice and tobacco, even though ice is much more extreme. Just like how responsible smoking can avoid causing second hand inhalation, responsible ice usage can avoid harming others, just that the measures must be much more strict. It is difficult to implement, but in principle it should be accessible (provided the usage is responsible).
Regardless of implementation there will always be those who abuse the accessibility. If we were to draw analogies between tobacco and ice, then the worst case scenario of irresponsible tobacco usage is perhaps children grown up with inefficient lungs and the subsequent consequences of that. Otherwise, we get a bit of careless second hand smoke. However irresponsible ice usage could lead to the death or harm of others, and whilst individuals similar to yourself could use ice responsibly, what's to say those who don't cause a loss of life? And even those who do use responsibly, it's entirely plausible for them to misjudge themselves and (whilst it would be a slim chance) wind up paranoid or psychotic for two hours and, again, harm others.
-
If Mao or anyone else smokes when no one else is around, who is harmed? I agree that the government should prevent people from smoking in public places, educate the public on its harms etc. but what right do you have to stop him from smoking if no one else is directly harmed?
Yeah but this is one person, 80% of others wouldn't care.
-
How would you justify making Ice accessible to people when it potentially harms others?
Irresponsible use and accessibility are two different things. Analogies can be drawn between ice and tobacco, even though ice is much more extreme. Just like how responsible smoking can avoid causing second hand inhalation, responsible ice usage can avoid harming others, just that the measures must be much more strict. It is difficult to implement, but in principle it should be accessible (provided the usage is responsible).
Regardless of implementation there will always be those who abuse the accessibility. If we were to draw analogies between tobacco and ice, then the worst case scenario of irresponsible tobacco usage is perhaps children grown up with inefficient lungs and the subsequent consequences of that. Otherwise, we get a bit of careless second hand smoke. However irresponsible ice usage could lead to the death or harm of others, and whilst individuals similar to yourself could use ice responsibly, what's to say those who don't cause a loss of life. And even those who do use responsibly, it's entirely plausible for them to misjudge themselves and (whilst it would be a slim chance) wind up paranoid or psychotic for two hours and, again, harm others.
Yeah I don't think Ice is something you can just try and throw away and forget about. There can be serious implications. I don't think there's such a thing as the 'responsible use of ice',
-
I'm genuinely not sure how I feel about this. It will certainly save lives and save public hospital money, however, it would come at the cost of:
1) freedom to choose
Thats the whole idea of living in a society, you give up certain freedoms for the greater good and to allow society to function - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
2) bottom line of many retailers (would certainly close many tobacconists)
Oh, boohoo. You can't stand in the way of progress to save a few jobs. There's a reason we don't have blacksmiths or farriers anymore as large professions, society progressed and advanced.
They're doing something inherently harmful as well, their whole line of business is based on selling a product that does real harm. How would you feel if your local crack dealer or sex trafficker went out of business?
I thought about this, and sure, that will be true from say 2018 to maybe say 2050, but the point is that by roughly 2080, the ENTIRE Tasmanian populace will be smoke free. Also, say you're a smoke from qld, and you wanna visit tassie. If you can't buy cigarettes, you won't visit. It would damage tourism as well..
It's one concern but its a short term one. Some kind of illegal sales ring might pop up.
Another concern is people simply go to another state and load up on the ciggies. When gambling was banned in Victoria, people often went to casino's or pokies just over the border. We have to face the fact, no matter what we think, plenty of people will keep doing shit that bad for them.
If you calculate how much they're contributing to society by taxes and other things like that as compared to what the sale of cigarettes is costing society, i'm sure you'd hit a negative. It's not like they can't get other jobs either. Almost all of the workers in Australia don't sell cigarettes.
Freedom of choice shouldn't include doing things that are batshit stupid, like not wearing your seatbelt. I don't hear the freedom of choice crowd complain about that one... i guess they're thinking one step at a time?
It's nice to have principals and believe in something but its even better to be pragmatic and realistic, while i think this is a decent idea in some idealistic theory, i doubt it'll work that well in real life. I'm in favour of more regulation and other things like that but this way wont work.
It's quite clear they're addictive. According to a study in the lancet, they're much closer to Cocaine than Marujiana or Meth in addictivity potential. I don't smoke so i don't know how pleasurable it is in the same way a few drinks are, i'm sure thats one factor. Lets not forget though, if you smoke on a regular basis, a lot of the supposed "pleasure" is just feeding your addiction, getting that next hit rather than simply enjoying it.
(http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/2482/380pxrationalscaletoass.png)
I think Alcohol is a much more pressing problem though. Smokers aren't usually violent or smoke so many packs a day on the same level an alcoholic might. A mate works at IGA and plenty of people come back 3 or 4 times a day to buy booze, they dont even buy a 6 pack or in bulk. I guess its to maintain some illusion that they're "not that bad" then later come back for more. I know the kids of alcoholics, it sounds like hell. Smokers aren't nearly as bad on that level. As far as i know, considering the most recent legislation too, we probably have the highest regulation on it already out of any nation on earth. I don't see nearly as many of you crusading against obesity or ultra-bad foods. Obesity certainly causes a lot of problems, i dont know if its on par with smoking but its pretty bad. I'm happy with how we have it now.
This is a silly plan and it won't work. Rates are already declining. I think we should just keep up our current efforts and wait for natural attrition of smokers. We'll never get it down to 0.00% but we can certainly chip away at it.
-
I think Alcohol is a much more pressing problem though.
Yeah that reminds me of when everyone was talking about whether the legal limit of alcohol to drive should be set to zero, what do you guys think about that?
I probably agree with it.
And yeah something should be done with obesity/ introducing physical activity.
-
(http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/2482/380pxrationalscaletoass.png)
Wait. LSD and E are 'better' than tobacco and alcohol?
-
Wait. LSD and E are 'better' than tobacco and alcohol?
According to this study, yes. Heres what seems to be a half decent summary - http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/index.html .
We're almost culturally conditioned to think alcohol and tabacco aren't that harmful in comparison to something almost scary to the general public like Ectasy or Meth. Alcohol is actually incredibly harmful in a lot of ways. Since its relevant to my academic interests i've come across it quite a bit, withdrawl from alcohol can actually kill someone. If you're a chronic alcoholic and get off the sauce, you could die. That's very rare if you look at a lot of other drugs. You go through horrible withdrawals but it won't actually kill you. Not to mention all the cancer alcohol causes...liver problems...obesity...strokes...etc. What i also like about this scale is how it also included harm to other people under the banner of harm. We all know alcohol can make people violent and impair their decision making in a bad way. I wouldn't drive on E or LSD but it wont make you violent like alcohol does (unless you have a bad trip i guess).
Really, we need to reshape peoples perceptions, as far as things you can take goes, alcohol is pretty bad, especially considering how wide-spread it is. Just looking at the demographics. i dobut you have a lot of 50 year old accountant fathers taking E or LSD, fair few people hit the bottle though. I'm not saying drinking is bad, i drink myself, i enjoy it. If i had to be stranded on an island with a few beverages to drink for eternity Gin and beer would be up there. It's a lie to say it doesn't cause harm though. I live in a pretty low SES area, a lot of these people already dont have a lot of money to begin with and they're blowing half of it on booze. Theres 4 bottle shops within like 500 meters of each other here. Just annecdotally, i don't see it as much in the well off areas. It's all kinds of bad. Don't have a solution though.
-
How so and implicated by whom?
By whom? Well, pretty much everyone who has conducted a major study into it. I supposed if you have the patience I could do a literature review for you, but it's probably easier to read the WHO reports which evaluate a range of studies that don't just implicate it, they suggest taxation should be central to any governmental response.
I don't deny that it doesn't work on some level, but you can't just isolate and champion taxes alone.
Er, who did? Taxes should be part of it, not all of the response.
-
Don't have a solution though.
Again, whilst there will never be a 'solution' I think mostly education would be a step in the right direction. A girl I'm friends with -didn't know alcohol was a drug, -disagreed that six standard drinks was considered a binge, -told me it was fine to drink when she was on anti-d's, and then drank when she was on benzos. Brilliance. Perhaps with increased awareness not drinking alcohol would be culturally more acceptable and less people might choose to drink, or drink a lot.
-
[
By whom? Well, pretty much everyone who has conducted a major study into it. I supposed if you have the patience I could do a literature review for you, but it's probably easier to read the WHO reports which evaluate a range of studies that don't just implicate it, they suggest taxation should be central to any governmental response.
I would like to have a look at said reports. Also, keep in mind that this is the claim that you'd have to back up: "Increasing price is universally associated with reduced uptake, decreased consumption and increased quitting. It is likely the most significant single factor implicated in the massive decrease of smoking uptake and consumption since the 1990s."
Er, who did? Taxes should be part of it, not all of the response.
Well, you did omit the other factors while making bold claims championing taxes.
-
Wow, this would actually be the single good thing to come out of Tasmania if it happens. I personally don't have a vendetta or anything against the image of smoking or smokers in general (lots of my friends smoke), but as someone who cares greatly about their health I absolutely detest the lack of regulation on second-hand smoke; if the government won't ban lighting up in ALL public places, or create 'smoking rooms' around the city etc. then just ban the freakin things completely.
To all the people crying 'i am a citizen i have rights etc.' yeah alright, get over yourselves. A couple of the toxic components in cigarettes are formaldehyde and lead. If I went to a restuarant and started lacing people's food with formaldehyde and lead I'd probably be arrested for attempted murder via food poisoning. So why should someone be allowed to blow that same sh*t right in your face, the logic bewilders me. I would support any law that made smoking only legal on private property (e.g. your home or at house parties). But even then there will be mothers who smoke and damage their baby's health in utero (I feel absolutely disgusted at this revolting behaviour whenever I see it happen), as well as parents from lower-income areas smoking all day around their kids who don't have any say in the matter, etc. Does a fetus in the womb have a say in whether or not their carrier floods their body with toxins from smoking? Does a 5 year old child have the mental or physical capacity to convince his stressed out parent to stop smoking inside the house?
We all know that the only reason cigarettes haven't been banned in this day and age is because they are far too widespread within society; tobacco companies have unfortunately been allowed to garner massive influence over the past century. And any government today, no matter how foward-thinking, are too p*ssy to take a stand (well fair enough, every smoker in the nation would vote them out if a cigarette ban was even hinted at). Which is why for once in my life I actually have some respect for Tasmania for having the balls to do what other states won't, although I am doubtful anything of substance will ever eventuate.
To the argument that ciggies should be legal alongside all drugs; googs aren't cool brah. Think of all the times you've had druggies come up to you in the city and ask you for change for 'food'. Thankfully there probably aren't many incidents you can recall. However, imagine that ice, crack and all that other nasty sh*t is legalised for the next generation, even with high taxes and all. Within 100 years we will have most likely destroyed all progress humanity has made over the past thousands of years; every second person on the street will be begging for loose change for their next hit. I'm not being some moralistic preacher here, in fact I approve of the fact that if you really want a hit, it's not that difficult if you know the right people to supply you with what you want, for instance when I really feel stressed out my mate and I cook hash brownies. But for the government to actually put it out there and say 'you know what, snort as much meth as you can afford', I can't even comprehend the logic that says we should legalise drugs. I simply cannot comprehend how any educated person would support legalising drugs just because they feel that people should 'have a choice to live how they want'.
I'm genuinely not sure how I feel about this. It will certainly save lives and save public hospital money, however, it would come at the cost of:
1) freedom to choose
2) bottom line of many retailers (would certainly close many tobacconists)
I think I'm against this one.
1) no one has the freedom to choose to damage the health of those in the immediate vinicty, no mother has the right to subject her newborn baby to the toxins from cigarettes.
2) ok well why don't we start selling kalishnakovs, pistols and grenade launchers in Australia then, i hear many weapon retailers here are pissed off at our current gun laws because it's bad for business
see thats why im conflicted - is putting retailers out of business, damaging tourism and trampling over people's right to choose worth the lives it will save?
seriously bro
I am honestly surprised at the number of people who support the use of cigarettes and even illicit drugs on this forum. I mean, a lot of you see it as the right to choose to do what you want no matter the consequences, kind of feels like everyone here has paranoia of being ruled by an ostensibly totalitarian government. I see it as society being progressive, adapting and improving upon previous generations so the future will continually develop to provide a brighter, healthier and more productive existence. Rules and laws exist for a reason people, they're not just in place because someone one day decided to be a b*tch and make everything less fun for everyone.
Well that's my logic anyway, my other solution is to provide free cigarettes to anyone who wants them so that the stupid people will kill themselves faster
-
Amen. ;)
-
alexa94 your solution is basically the government FORCING you to be healthy.. seriously how is this no different than an 'ostensibly totalitarian government'
Also what are your views on alcohol.. i guess this should be banned as well right?
-
alexa94 your solution is basically the government FORCING you to be healthy.. seriously how is this no different than an 'ostensibly totalitarian government'
Also what are your views on alcohol.. i guess this should be banned as well right?
Hell no, why would I want alcohol banned?
No, did you read what I wrote mate - the government is preventing smokers from imposing their vices on other people, whether it is just a general non-smoker, child or fetus in the womb. Are you telling me that this is unreasonable and makes the government excessively controlling? If I want to eat fatty food or drink a beer I am not destroying the livers of everyone around me, I am not clogging the arteries of those sitting next to me
-
alexa94 your solution is basically the government FORCING you to be healthy.. seriously how is this no different than an 'ostensibly totalitarian government'
Also what are your views on alcohol.. i guess this should be banned as well right?
Hell no, why would I want alcohol banned?
Well..to "provide a brighter, healthier and more productive existence" surely you wouldn't disagree that alcohol use and abuse is extremely unhealthy? So why should the government allow people to drink it? We should ban it to fulfill the purpose of your statement which I just quoted above.
No, did you read what I wrote mate - the government is preventing smokers from imposing their vices on other people, whether it is just a general non-smoker, child or fetus in the womb.
Yes i did read what you wrote.. yes I agree that public smoking should be banned there should be certain areas where smoking can be allowed so it doesn't effect other people. But I don't agree with you in that we should outright ban it and refuse the right of people to use it.
In regards to women who smoke.. well there will always be stupid people, we can't deny that there will be a few people who are negligent who don't care about their health or their babies health but does this mean we should refuse the right for people to smoke for those who don't condone or act in this way? Hell no. The same argument can be applied to women who drink alcohol when their pregnant, so according to you we should ban alcohol because some retard decided to drink when she was pregnant which subsequently effected her child's health..
If I want to eat fatty food or drink a beer I am not destroying the livers of everyone around me, I am not clogging the arteries of those sitting next to me
So it's okay when it only effects YOUR own health and not anyone elses.. well then what about drugs which don't effect anyone elses health expect the user, would you support their legalization then?
Think of all the times you've had druggies come up to you in the city and ask you for change for 'food'.
What a nice generalization of ALL drug users.. nice man. Anyway you do realize that a lot of them are also extreme alcoholics? Alcohol.. you know that substance which you think should be legal.
my other solution is to provide free cigarettes to anyone who wants them so that the stupid people will kill themselves faster
Same solution can be applied to alcohol.. isn't there some kind of double standard you are using here? Stupid people can be given unlimited supplies of booze so they can kill themselves faster.
-
Well..to "provide a brighter, healthier and more productive existence" surely you wouldn't disagree that alcohol use and abuse is extremely unhealthy? So why should the government allow people to drink it? We should ban it to fulfill the purpose of your statement which I just quoted above.
Of course alcohol abuse is extremely unhealthy, but there is a safe level of alcohol consumption, which is why guidelines generally recommend for an adult not to consume more than 2 standard drinks a day, because the body is able to metabolise the alcohol (hopefully) with no permanent effects on the body. Alcohol is even used in cooking, indicative of the fact that small or moderate amounts of alcohol are not 'extremely unhealthy' for the body, otherwise the number of deaths from liver cancer would probably be much higher. But it has been said time and time again, there is NO safe limit of inhalation of cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke
Yeah I agree, drinking while pregnent is just as bad and unfortunately that can't be controlled. But that's where the direct effects on other lives are limited to; I'm not going to go back into the whole secondhand smoke argument again.
My current viewpoint on illicit drugs continuing to be illegal and alcohol being legal stems from the fact that I believe the negative consequences on health and society of hard drugs is far, far worse than that of alcohol. To be honest, I'm not really sure what your stance is here though; do you believe that all hard drugs should be legal?
my other solution is to provide free cigarettes to anyone who wants them so that the stupid people will kill themselves faster
Same solution can be applied to alcohol.. isn't there some kind of double standard you are using here? Stupid people can be given unlimited supplies of booze so they can kill themselves faster.
notsureifsrs
A line obviously needs to be drawn somewhere - it is ridiculous to say that if one moderately harmful substance is banned then every single thing that is unhealthy should be banned. And opposingly, the argument that if one moderately harmful substance is legal then all unhealthy substances (illicit drugs) need to be legal is just dumb, such extremist views probably won't go very far. Anyway, that's pretty much what we're discussing now right? And I'm saying the line should be drawn at alcohol/cigarettes being legal/illegal. Disagree?
-
Of course alcohol abuse is extremely unhealthy, but there is a safe level of alcohol consumption, which is why guidelines generally recommend for an adult not to consume more than 2 standard drinks a day..
The guidelines are just guidelines they just act as a warning to not exceed the recommend limit but any person can be usually exceed with no legal consequences whatsoever.. so in that sense it is quite dangerous and addiction and dependence on alcohol is not that hard to acquire.
But it has been said time and time again, there is NO safe limit of inhalation of cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke
Once again.. my solution to this is to creating specific places where people are allowed to smoke so second-hand smoke doesn't occur, don't you think this is a more viable option then literally spitting in the face of the millions of people who smoke by outright banning it? Also what do you think would happen if you banned it? There will be heaps of angry smokers who will riot and try to protest against the smoking ban.. it will just cause an inconvenience that other solutions don't.
Yeah I agree, drinking while pregnent is just as bad and unfortunately that can't be controlled.
Then why did you use it as an argument to ban smoking if its simply out of our control..
My current viewpoint on illicit drugs continuing to be illegal and alcohol being legal stems from the fact that I believe the negative consequences on health and society of hard drugs is far, far worse than that of alcohol. To be honest, I'm not really sure what your stance is here though; do you believe that all hard drugs should be legal?
I support the legalization of marijuana only.. as I haven't done any research on the other drugs..
In terms of how harmful alcohol is I suggest you take a good read of kingpomba's post which shows that alcohol is more harmful then most people think, whilst other illegal drugs which aren't as harmful are typically perceived as being worst then alcohol..
-
My current viewpoint on illicit drugs continuing to be illegal and alcohol being legal stems from the fact that I believe the negative consequences on health and society of hard drugs is far, far worse than that of alcohol.
This is not true. It is through historical quirks that alcohol is legal (after all, humankind has consumed it almost since the beginning of agriculture) and tobacco is [still] legal whilst other drugs such as opium, marijuana, ecstasy and LSD are illegal.
The judgement of legal/illegal was *never* based on minimising harm and costs to the individual or society (instead, often laws that were established for racist reasons).
-
I would like to have a look at said reports.
They're freely available and highly recommended.
Also, keep in mind that this is the claim that you'd have to back up: "Increasing price is universally associated with reduced uptake, decreased consumption and increased quitting. It is likely the most significant single factor implicated in the massive decrease of smoking uptake and consumption since the 1990s."
Look hard enough and I'm sure you'll find an exception, so "universally" was a poor word choice. How about the overwhelming majority then?
Er, who did? Taxes should be part of it, not all of the response.
Well, you did omit the other factors while making bold claims championing taxes.
This is a strawman. So because I did not cite an exhaustive list of all the other factors associated with tobacco consumption, I am guilty of "championing" taxes at the exclusion of all other strategies...?
There is a myth perpetuated in discourse like these, that taxes are ineffective and purely a corrupt governmental revenue stream. In terms of single policies the evidence suggests that taxation is the most significant single factor. Many other factors contribute, but on their own, none have a cost-benefit ratio as favourable as taxation. Like any human problem, the response should be multifaceted of course.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i62.full - for starters.
Chaloupka F and Warner K. The economics of smoking, in The handbook of health economics, Newhouse J and Cuyler A, Editors, New York: Elsevier Science B. V, 2001; 1539-627. Available from: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/525412/description#description
Evans WN and Huang LX. Cigarette taxes and teen smoking: new evidence from panels of repeated cross-sections. Department of Economics Working Paper: University of Maryland, 1998.
Tauras J and Chaloupka F. Determinants of smoking cessation: an analysis of young adult men and women. Working paper no. 7262. Cambridge MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1999. Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/
Ross H and Chaloupka F. The effect of cigarette prices on youth smoking. Health Econ 2003;12:217-30. Available from: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/94516135/ABSTRACT
Tauras J. Public policy and smoking cessation among young adults in the United States. Health Policy 2004;68:321-32. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V8X-4BBMWP9-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2004&_rdoc=8&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235882%232004%23999319996%23498981%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5882&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=19&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=81cdb953c1ae5c57975b2180c088bdaa
-
To all the people crying 'i am a citizen i have rights etc.' yeah alright, get over yourselves. A couple of the toxic components in cigarettes are formaldehyde and lead. If I went to a restuarant and started lacing people's food with formaldehyde and lead I'd probably be arrested for attempted murder via food poisoning. So why should someone be allowed to blow that same sh*t right in your face, the logic bewilders me. I would support any law that made smoking only legal on private property (e.g. your home or at house parties). But even then there will be mothers who smoke and damage their baby's health in utero (I feel absolutely disgusted at this revolting behaviour whenever I see it happen), as well as parents from lower-income areas smoking all day around their kids who don't have any say in the matter, etc. Does a fetus in the womb have a say in whether or not their carrier floods their body with toxins from smoking? Does a 5 year old child have the mental or physical capacity to convince his stressed out parent to stop smoking inside the house?
Before you ask others to get over themselves, you need to get over yourself. You do not have the privilege to make my decisions for me, and so long as I do what I do without forcing harm upon others (they have a choice to stay near me), your opinion can get fucked. The examples you gave are examples of seriously stupid decision making, and if you want to make laws to force these people live the life you want them to live, then good luck to you and your moral high horse.
-
your opinion can get fucked.
you seriously have issues man
and yeah the examples i gave are of stupid decision making but guess what, there are stupid people who make stupid decisions that inflict harm upon others
i see you're a mod, could you please ban me from these forums so i stop wasting my time replying to threads like these?
-
your opinion can get fucked.
you seriously have issues man
and yeah the examples i gave are of stupid decision making but guess what, there are stupid people who make stupid decisions that inflict harm upon others
i see you're a mod, could you please ban me from these forums so i stop wasting my time replying to threads like these?
Guys let's calm down, please lets not get too personal.
-
To all the people crying 'i am a citizen i have rights etc.' yeah alright, get over yourselves. A couple of the toxic components in cigarettes are formaldehyde and lead. If I went to a restuarant and started lacing people's food with formaldehyde and lead I'd probably be arrested for attempted murder via food poisoning. So why should someone be allowed to blow that same sh*t right in your face, the logic bewilders me. I would support any law that made smoking only legal on private property (e.g. your home or at house parties). But even then there will be mothers who smoke and damage their baby's health in utero (I feel absolutely disgusted at this revolting behaviour whenever I see it happen), as well as parents from lower-income areas smoking all day around their kids who don't have any say in the matter, etc. Does a fetus in the womb have a say in whether or not their carrier floods their body with toxins from smoking? Does a 5 year old child have the mental or physical capacity to convince his stressed out parent to stop smoking inside the house?
Before you ask others to get over themselves, you need to get over yourself. You do not have the privilege to make my decisions for me, and so long as I do what I do without forcing harm upon others (they have a choice to stay near me), your opinion can get fucked. The examples you gave are examples of seriously stupid decision making, and if you want to make laws to force these people live the life you want them to live, then good luck to you and your moral high horse.
You are a hypocrite. I wish I was an admin so I could take this post and make a thread called "how not to reply in this forum" :) .
-
Of course people are gonna get offended when alexa94 says:
my other solution is to provide free cigarettes to anyone who wants them so that the stupid people will kill themselves faster
..inb4 thread lock
-
i see you're a mod, could you please ban me from these forums so i stop wasting my time replying to threads like these?
I can customise your profile so that you can only see certain subforums if you like :)
-
Of course people are gonna get offend when alexa94 says
my other solution is to provide free cigarettes to anyone who wants them so that the stupid people will kill themselves faster
..inb4 thread lock
Oki see you're a mod, could you please ban me from these forums so i stop wasting my time replying to threads like these?
I can customise your profile so that you can only see certain subforums if you like :)
Haha nah it's all good, maybe I should just exercise a bit of self-control
-
To all the people crying 'i am a citizen i have rights etc.' yeah alright, get over yourselves. A couple of the toxic components in cigarettes are formaldehyde and lead. If I went to a restuarant and started lacing people's food with formaldehyde and lead I'd probably be arrested for attempted murder via food poisoning. So why should someone be allowed to blow that same sh*t right in your face, the logic bewilders me. I would support any law that made smoking only legal on private property (e.g. your home or at house parties). But even then there will be mothers who smoke and damage their baby's health in utero (I feel absolutely disgusted at this revolting behaviour whenever I see it happen), as well as parents from lower-income areas smoking all day around their kids who don't have any say in the matter, etc. Does a fetus in the womb have a say in whether or not their carrier floods their body with toxins from smoking? Does a 5 year old child have the mental or physical capacity to convince his stressed out parent to stop smoking inside the house?
Before you ask others to get over themselves, you need to get over yourself. You do not have the privilege to make my decisions for me, and so long as I do what I do without forcing harm upon others (they have a choice to stay near me), your opinion can get fucked. The examples you gave are examples of seriously stupid decision making, and if you want to make laws to force these people live the life you want them to live, then good luck to you and your moral high horse.
You are a hypocrite. I wish I was an admin so I could take this post and make a thread called "how not to reply in this forum" :) .
He's a hypocrite for taking offense to someone who literally hoped he would die quickly?
Tell me where he actually said anything hypocritical? He didn't insult alexa. He said his opinion can get fucked.
I am an admin, and I can tell you right now that was a perfectly civil reply to someone who just wished death upon them.
-
To all the people crying 'i am a citizen i have rights etc.' yeah alright, get over yourselves. A couple of the toxic components in cigarettes are formaldehyde and lead. If I went to a restuarant and started lacing people's food with formaldehyde and lead I'd probably be arrested for attempted murder via food poisoning. So why should someone be allowed to blow that same sh*t right in your face, the logic bewilders me. I would support any law that made smoking only legal on private property (e.g. your home or at house parties). But even then there will be mothers who smoke and damage their baby's health in utero (I feel absolutely disgusted at this revolting behaviour whenever I see it happen), as well as parents from lower-income areas smoking all day around their kids who don't have any say in the matter, etc. Does a fetus in the womb have a say in whether or not their carrier floods their body with toxins from smoking? Does a 5 year old child have the mental or physical capacity to convince his stressed out parent to stop smoking inside the house?
Before you ask others to get over themselves, you need to get over yourself. You do not have the privilege to make my decisions for me, and so long as I do what I do without forcing harm upon others (they have a choice to stay near me), your opinion can get fucked. The examples you gave are examples of seriously stupid decision making, and if you want to make laws to force these people live the life you want them to live, then good luck to you and your moral high horse.
You are a hypocrite. I wish I was an admin so I could take this post and make a thread called "how not to reply in this forum" :) .
He's a hypocrite for taking offense to someone who literally hoped he would die quickly?
Tell me where he actually said anything hypocritical? He didn't insult alexa. He said his opinion can get fucked.
I am an admin, and I can tell you right now that was a perfectly civil reply to someone who just wished death upon them.
Firstly I was not being serious when I said that, maybe when I was typing it at 2 am in the morning I thought it was obvious that it was not meant to be taken literally, but clearly some people have not seen it that way.
Secondly, did I say something along the lines of 'I wish .... would die?' No, I basically insinuated that smoking more will kill you faster, which is why it is stupid to smoke
-
Following on from "second" where you acknowledge that your plan would lead to smokers dying more quickly. You then said you wanted to see that implemented as a solution. You were actively wishing for Mao's speedy death.
Now you'll try and backtrack and say "I didn't mean it literally LOLZ". The sentiment was there. You'd rather smokers simply die. If you were truly sorry for your choice of words, you'd actually apologise for them instead of attempting to weasel out of any sort of responsibility for being so callous as to wish death on people.
And really, it's not bad enough that they're addicted to something that's killing them slowly anyway, you're now trying to kick them while they're down, too? If you're so angry about tobacco, you should get angry at tobacco companies for producing it, or government for not having the balls to legislate it. But you'd rather blame the victims, obviously. How cowardly. How disgusting. I don't know how you can look anyone in the face, and say that, and feel like you are a moral person to do so.
-
Following on from "second" where you acknowledge that your plan would lead to smokers dying more quickly. You then said you wanted to see that implemented as a solution. You were actively wishing for Mao's speedy death.
Now you'll try and backtrack and say "I didn't mean it literally LOLZ". The sentiment was there. You'd rather smokers simply die. If you were truly sorry for your choice of words, you'd actually apologise for them instead of attempting to weasel out of any sort of responsibility for being so callous as to wish death on people.
And really, it's not bad enough that they're addicted to something that's killing them slowly anyway, you're now trying to kick them while they're down, too? If you're so angry about tobacco, you should get angry at tobacco companies for producing it, or government for not having the balls to legislate it. But you'd rather blame the victims, obviously. How cowardly. How disgusting. I don't know how you can look anyone in the face, and say that, and feel like you are a moral person to do so.
wow, all i can say is get a life - you graduated 5 years ago, and you're sitting on your computer trying to convince an 18 year old who you don't even know that they're a bad person, by analysing their thought process as they wrote a rhetorical sentence. i won't post here again, i know i won't be missed
-
Following on from "second" where you acknowledge that your plan would lead to smokers dying more quickly. You then said you wanted to see that implemented as a solution. You were actively wishing for Mao's speedy death.
Now you'll try and backtrack and say "I didn't mean it literally LOLZ". The sentiment was there. You'd rather smokers simply die. If you were truly sorry for your choice of words, you'd actually apologise for them instead of attempting to weasel out of any sort of responsibility for being so callous as to wish death on people.
And really, it's not bad enough that they're addicted to something that's killing them slowly anyway, you're now trying to kick them while they're down, too? If you're so angry about tobacco, you should get angry at tobacco companies for producing it, or government for not having the balls to legislate it. But you'd rather blame the victims, obviously. How cowardly. How disgusting. I don't know how you can look anyone in the face, and say that, and feel like you are a moral person to do so.
wow, all i can say is get a life - you graduated 5 years ago, and you're sitting on your computer trying to convince an 18 year old who you don't even know that they're a bad person, by analysing their thought process as they wrote a rhetorical sentence. i won't post here again, i know i won't be missed
Oh suck it up princess. You're 18 years old and you cant take criticism? Have fun in the real world.
-
But you'd rather blame the victims.
As in blame the smokers?
I guess at the end of the day I have no problems with others smoking, so long as they are RESPONSIBLE and don't create a cloud of second hand smoke, problem is I have rarely seen this happen.
-
Thread died.
Smoking is stupid, I used to smoke regularly now I only smoke if I've been drinking. But it's fucking stupid but telling people what they can and can't put into their bodies is also stupid probably even more stupid.
The whole damn thing is stupid.
-
now I only smoke if I've been drinking
Interesting how there's that combination, i.e. someone might find it hard not to smoke after a glass of wine.
-
hello thread that i'm probably going to have to lock soon, I wish you'd play nice and try and emulate the first few pages of nice discussion :(
-
wow, all i can say is get a life - you graduated 5 years ago, and you're sitting on your computer trying to convince an 18 year old who you don't even know that they're a bad person, by analysing their thought process as they wrote a rhetorical sentence. i won't post here again, i know i won't be missed
You're a fucking moron. I was on your side until you resorted to pathetic little insults, because you can't think of a decent argument.
-
Don't see why we have to resort to swearing (*cough* mods).
-
now I only smoke if I've been drinking
Interesting how there's that combination, i.e. someone might find it hard not to smoke after a glass of wine.
I'd had more than a glass of wine. I decided it'd be a good idea to smoke 4 cigarettes in a row my mouth was not happy in the morning but I was so relaxed afterwards.
But I don't understand the correlation between smoking and drinking
-
Okay, for some reason me calling out a bad argument turned this into a mod party? Oh well. Let this be the apparent schoolyard bullying.
And really, it's not bad enough that they're addicted to something that's killing them slowly anyway, you're now trying to kick them while they're down, too? If you're so angry about tobacco, you should get angry at tobacco companies for producing it, or government for not having the balls to legislate it. But you'd rather blame the victims, obviously. How cowardly. How disgusting. I don't know how you can look anyone in the face, and say that, and feel like you are a moral person to do so.
Cheers for sticking up for me, but I totally disagree with this. I do not wish for any pity, nor do I want to be considered the 'victim'. The choice to smoke is mine, and the victim are those around me who has taken in second hand smoking but didn't have a choice. I stress the latter part, because that is me (a smoker) inflicting damage upon them (victims). If they did have a choice (i.e. to move away 5 meters) but didn't choose to, then bad fucking luck, it's their choice to inhale the second hand smoke. To date, I am confident I have not forced second hand smoking onto anyone.
This argument doesn't hold up in open public places, such as in the CBD. I acknowledge that, and this is why I won't smoke as I walk around in the city. My mentality doesn't go for every smoker, and more laws should be passed to erect smoking areas in public places.
But for other situations, such as nightclubs, restaurants, etc etc, people can make a conscious decision as to whether or not they want to be near smoking areas. Notice how all the tables outside have ash-trays? They're there for a reason. If you decide to sit outside at a cafe on Bourke street, then complain about the guy behind you smoking, well tough shit, what did you expect? Sit inside next time.
-
This is a strawman. So because I did not cite an exhaustive list of all the other factors associated with tobacco consumption, I am guilty of "championing" taxes at the exclusion of all other strategies...?
It isn't a strawman. If it wasn't alluded in your initial post I couldn't possibly have known - I'm not omniscient. Secondly, you are guilty of championing taxes because that's what you did: "It is likely the most significant single factor implicated in the massive decrease of smoking uptake and consumption since the 1990s"; which is a fair stance, I don't get why you're being so defensive. But whatever, I'll have a look at the links and reply when I don't have exams anymore, or when it is convenient. Thanks and apologies if my replies were snarky
-
To all the people crying 'i am a citizen i have rights etc.' yeah alright, get over yourselves. A couple of the toxic components in cigarettes are formaldehyde and lead. If I went to a restuarant and started lacing people's food with formaldehyde and lead I'd probably be arrested for attempted murder via food poisoning. So why should someone be allowed to blow that same sh*t right in your face, the logic bewilders me. I would support any law that made smoking only legal on private property (e.g. your home or at house parties). But even then there will be mothers who smoke and damage their baby's health in utero (I feel absolutely disgusted at this revolting behaviour whenever I see it happen), as well as parents from lower-income areas smoking all day around their kids who don't have any say in the matter, etc. Does a fetus in the womb have a say in whether or not their carrier floods their body with toxins from smoking? Does a 5 year old child have the mental or physical capacity to convince his stressed out parent to stop smoking inside the house?
Before you ask others to get over themselves, you need to get over yourself. You do not have the privilege to make my decisions for me, and so long as I do what I do without forcing harm upon others (they have a choice to stay near me), your opinion can get fucked. The examples you gave are examples of seriously stupid decision making, and if you want to make laws to force these people live the life you want them to live, then good luck to you and your moral high horse.
You are a hypocrite. I wish I was an admin so I could take this post and make a thread called "how not to reply in this forum" :) .
He's a hypocrite for taking offense to someone who literally hoped he would die quickly?
Tell me where he actually said anything hypocritical? He didn't insult alexa. He said his opinion can get fucked.
I am an admin, and I can tell you right now that was a perfectly civil reply to someone who just wished death upon them.
No, he's a hypocrite because a while ago he took one of my posts where I called someone stupid in the debate section, and made a thread about it saying "this is how you shouldn't post in this forum" basically because I was rude by calling someone stupid/an idiot.
And yet here he is...
EDIT: I probably should've mentioned this, but on the topic of the thread, I think we should simply outlaw smoking in all public places i.e. whilst walking in the CBD. I think that the incremental increase of Laws around smoking has been great, and Australia being one of the toughest (if not the toughest) country on smokers in the world, we've done a great job in seeing its decline. More of the same imo.
-
This argument doesn't hold up in open public places, such as in the CBD. I acknowledge that, and this is why I won't smoke as I walk around in the city. My mentality doesn't go for every smoker, and more laws should be passed to erect smoking areas in public places.
But for other situations, such as nightclubs, restaurants, etc etc, people can make a conscious decision as to whether or not they want to be near smoking areas. Notice how all the tables outside have ash-trays? They're there for a reason. If you decide to sit outside at a cafe on Bourke street, then complain about the guy behind you smoking, well tough shit, what did you expect? Sit inside next time.
So, non-smokers shouldn't expect to enjoy eating outside when they've paid for a meal/coffee/whatever without other peoples choices infringing on them? Sometimes it's nicer to eat outside, especially in summer, it doesn't seem fair that the choice to eat outside entails being exposed to second-hand smoke.
-
I don't get why you're being so defensive.
Defending and clarifying one's position =/= being defensive.
Merely trying to make my position clear as I feel it has been misrepresented right from the get-go with: I don't deny that it doesn't work on some level, but you can't just isolate and champion taxes alone.
It doesn't bother me that you said I'm championing taxes (I do, they're demonstrably effective and have a good cost-benefit ratio), however it is not at all reasonable (particularly after last 2 replies) to suggest I advocated taxes as the sole tobacco strategy above all else.
I'm not omniscient
Fair enough. In my mind at the time, "most significant single factor" didn't come across as "we shouldn't bother with multifaceted approaches to tobacco-related harm at all because taxes are so good", but I could have been much clearer. Hopefully last reply cleared that up.
apologies if my replies were snarky
Didn't come across as snarky at all. Good luck with exams :)
-
wow, all i can say is get a life - you graduated 5 years ago, and you're sitting on your computer trying to convince an 18 year old who you don't even know that they're a bad person, by analysing their thought process as they wrote a rhetorical sentence. i won't post here again, i know i won't be missed
Hahaha, what an ingrate. I set up this site to help people. You sign up, and use it, you download the notes, use the forums etc.
Then you attack one of the tireless volunteers who has spent hundreds (if not thousands) of hours helping people. I think you could go your entire life and not help as many people as Mao has. I know people who have professed great debts of gratitude for the lengths he has gone to in order that they may learn and be educated.
And then like a greedy little piggy, you tell that volunteer that he should go die. And then you try to spite the creator of the resource when he defends that friend from your attack.
Oki doke, buddy. I'm the one who needs a life :) Learn some goddamn humility.
-
Okay, for some reason me calling out a bad argument turned this into a mod party? Oh well. Let this be the apparent schoolyard bullying.
And really, it's not bad enough that they're addicted to something that's killing them slowly anyway, you're now trying to kick them while they're down, too? If you're so angry about tobacco, you should get angry at tobacco companies for producing it, or government for not having the balls to legislate it. But you'd rather blame the victims, obviously. How cowardly. How disgusting. I don't know how you can look anyone in the face, and say that, and feel like you are a moral person to do so.
Cheers for sticking up for me, but I totally disagree with this. I do not wish for any pity, nor do I want to be considered the 'victim'. The choice to smoke is mine, and the victim are those around me who has taken in second hand smoking but didn't have a choice. I stress the latter part, because that is me (a smoker) inflicting damage upon them (victims). If they did have a choice (i.e. to move away 5 meters) but didn't choose to, then bad fucking luck, it's their choice to inhale the second hand smoke. To date, I am confident I have not forced second hand smoking onto anyone.
This argument doesn't hold up in open public places, such as in the CBD. I acknowledge that, and this is why I won't smoke as I walk around in the city. My mentality doesn't go for every smoker, and more laws should be passed to erect smoking areas in public places.
But for other situations, such as nightclubs, restaurants, etc etc, people can make a conscious decision as to whether or not they want to be near smoking areas. Notice how all the tables outside have ash-trays? They're there for a reason. If you decide to sit outside at a cafe on Bourke street, then complain about the guy behind you smoking, well tough shit, what did you expect? Sit inside next time.
Most smokers are victims of a culture in which they are peer pressured into smoking. Their parents smoke, their friends smoke. They're fed misinformation or they know perfectly well but do it anyway to fit in. And once they've started they cannot kick it. That may not have been your case, but it certainly is for the majority.
Given your contribution to society, I myself am perfectly okay with the government footing your medical bills :)
-
Hear hear!
-
If you decide to sit outside at a cafe on Bourke street, then complain about the guy behind you smoking, well tough shit, what did you expect? Sit inside next time.
This is like my mum, always wanting to sit outside in restaurants. I think she just wants to get some vitamin D though, nonetheless I always make her go inside.
Edit: Eriny had already explained what I was trying to say.
-
Again, whilst there will never be a 'solution' I think mostly education would be a step in the right direction. A girl I'm friends with -didn't know alcohol was a drug, -disagreed that six standard drinks was considered a binge, -told me it was fine to drink when she was on anti-d's, and then drank when she was on benzos. Brilliance. Perhaps with increased awareness not drinking alcohol would be culturally more acceptable and less people might choose to drink, or drink a lot.
Education does help, you know the effects but it certainly doesn't stop people. I know plenty of people at uni (which im sure by virtue of just getting in are fairly educated/intelligent) who have horrible drinking records, i cant say i haven't made mistakes like that on the odd occasion either. It'd probably more likely prevent people becoming full time alcoholics though.
Taxes do work, especially amongst youth. It's been validated by studies and it just makes common sense.
It costs me way more to drink, so, i'll drink less. Here a good bottle of vodka or gin is 30-40 bucks. In America you can pick up a litre or two for like 15-20 bucks. Apparently, its even higher in places like Scandinavian, it'd be interesting to compare a country with a very low alcohol tax to countries like Sweden with a very high alcohol price.
Well that's my logic anyway, my other solution is to provide free cigarettes to anyone who wants them so that the stupid people will kill themselves faster
Interestingly enough, i've seen plenty of people claim, on average, its better for people to smoke. Smokers die at a younger age and therefore cost the government less, despite all their care. Compared to someone who lives till 90 and needs all kinds of care, medication and surgery to keep their progressively deteriorating body going.
I don't know if its backed up by epidemiological studies but food for thought hey?
alexa94 your solution is basically the government FORCING you to be healthy.. seriously how is this no different than an 'ostensibly totalitarian government'
Isn't wearing seatbelts FORCING us to be safe? Are you against this?
What about banning dangerous food additives or herbal medicines/stimulants? Same deal
The issue here is, its OK if you're ideologically opposed to the government forcing us to do things on the whole, thats fine. If you apply this principal but excuse things like seat-belts or banning steroids or other dangerous items, you're not following your principal anymore, you're making exceptions. The question is then, why are these things excepted but other things aren't?
Are you telling me that this is unreasonable and makes the government excessively controlling? If I want to eat fatty food or drink a beer I am not destroying the livers of everyone around me, I am not clogging the arteries of those sitting next to me
If you are drinking a beer alone, you're right, you're not affecting anyone. Neither is the smoker who decides to smoke in their own private house away from people or with other smokers though. If you accept one, you gotta accept both.
By the same token, the person who smokes around other people, does do harm to them. Just like the drinker who impacts on his family or society.
Alcohol is just as bad, if not worse, as tobacco, so i don't know if your distinction as one being better (may of misinterpreted) is the right one to make.
You do not have the privilege to make my decisions for me, and so long as I do what I do without forcing harm upon others (they have a choice to stay near me), your opinion can get fucked.
This would be all well and good in a generic kind of society but we live in a specific society with universal health-care.
This one could be argued either way really.
One side will say that on average, the smoker is saddling society as a whole with additional costs and taking resources away from the ill, who are ill through no fault of their own because they continued with a habit they knew that was harmful to them*. The question i'm much more interested in (probably a vast minority compared to the average person) is in light of this, is it even ethical to smoke?
This is one of the arguments against public health-care or any kind of welfare, it almost creates a moral hazard. Some think that if you have nets like this, you don't really have an incentive for people to correct their bad habits or to improve themselves because it won't cost them anything and they know the government will take care of them.
Of course, theres a perfectly valid other-side as well.
*You can easily point to loads of other "unhealthy" things like eating maccas excessively or rock climbing or horse riding or something that would have a similar effect. It's interesting to see people go after smoking but not necessarily these things.
-
I've read through this whole thread and here are my thoughts so far:
1. Smoking should remain legal, but not on busy streets, such as in Melbourne. They should make a rule "no smoking within 10 metres of a public building" or something similar to that.
2. People need to differentiate between "hard" drugs and "soft" drugs. For example, marijuana and LSD are soft drugs, heroin, meth, crack and ice are hard drugs and ecstasy, tobacco and alcohol are medium drugs. I think that all soft drugs should be legalised, all medium drugs should be legalised but moderated (such as advertising limits and where they can be used) and all hard drugs, especially intravenous (IV) recreational drugs, should remain illegal.
3. Drugs don't directly "cause" people to do bad things. They can alter your mind and make decisions harder for you, but there is always a choice aspect to it. When I am drunk, I choose not to drive home. I also choose not to start fights or act "drunk and disorderly" out on the streets. If a person takes a drug and then commits a crime, then the person is responsible, not the drug.
4. Not every smoker dies a slow and painful death. Infact, less than 20% of long-term smokers have developed cancer as a result of their tobacco use and the majority of cigarette smokers do not have a criminal record. That is NOT to say that cigarettes are good for you and I am not trying to convince anyone to take up this nasty habit, but some people exaggerate the consequences quite a bit.
5. Australia is enough of a "nanny" country as it is, especially when it comes to road rules. We have a ridiculously high driving age - 22 years old is the minimum age to get your full driver's licence in Victoria and some of the P plate laws (especially the passenger limit one) are just unnecessary. There are very harsh rules on what constitutes a "roadworthy" car; my car got defected just recently because there was a gap between the plastic bonnet and the frame of the car, which is stupid considering it drives perfectly and isn't a hazard to anyone. Our speed limits are too low: 100km/h on a freeway is too slow. When you're driving in a straight line on a smooth, wide road, you can easily travel 140km/h or faster without being a danger to yourself or others. Gay marriage is illegal just because some people don't like it. But to put a long story short: our government is too dictative (if that's a word) and needs to be more liberal about the legalisation of some things.
6. Adults need to be treated as adults. In an ideal society, we would all have the choice to do certain things, but choose not to, out of maturity and intelligence. We don't need to be forced to behave a certain way. Those that do are not real adults, but we should not let the minority harm the rights of the majority. Instead of punishing the good, law-abiding citizens, we should punish those who abuse their privileges. For example, we should reduce the driving age to 16, but maintain a "zero tolerance" policy on hoon drivers by suspending the licenses of those who are immature and stupid about it.
7. Some people are stupid and choose to abuse cigarettes. Some women smoke when they are pregnant, thus harming the baby. Some poor people spend what little income they have on cigarettes. Whatever the case is, it is the person who is to blame for this, NOT the cigarettes. In the same way that guns don't kill people, people kill people, I can say that cigarettes don't harm people, people harm themselves (and others). I realise that there was a previous argument about wearing seat belts, but to be honest, you're not really missing out on much by choosing not to wear a seat belt, so there is no real reason to make it legal not to wear seat belts.
I don't smoke myself and I will never opt to take up such a dangerously unhealthy habit, but I respect the rights of others to make that decision for themselves. What business of mine is it if someone wants to light up a cigarette in the confines of their own property, or in a location such that passive smoking does not occur?
-
4. Not every smoker dies a slow and painful death. Infact, less than 20% of long-term smokers have developed cancer as a result of their tobacco use and the majority of cigarette smokers do not have a criminal record. That is NOT to say that cigarettes are good for you and I am not trying to convince anyone to take up this nasty habit, but some people exaggerate the consequences quite a bit.
Not taking any sides (as I haven't done enough reading to make an informed call on this topic), but there is no exaggeration, you're just taking one disease.
Factually, smoking is associated with MANY more health problems. Just from tobacco alone, there are things like kidney cancer, renal failure, breast cancer, throat cancer, stomach cancers, bladder cancer, heart disease, atherosclerosis, susceptibility to lung infections, impotence, and the list goes on - I haven't even mentioned a quarter of the scientifically proven associated illnesses. Furthermore, there are many additives in cigs (it's wiki, but here's a long list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes), and many of those have their own health problems associated with them too. It's not only about "dying a slow and painful death", but it's to do with the quality of life and the costs incurred by all of these treatments (and many suffer from multiple illnesses) on taxpayers.
Just food for thought.
Some women smoke when they are pregnant, thus harming the baby.
I don't really have a stance on adults hurting themselves with cigs (as of yet), but I'm not comfortable with this. I'm not fine with ANYONE hurting or putting children in unnecessary health risk. That extends to smoking in the presence of children (physical [health] and psychological [role model etc] effects), harming your developing baby, and also to unrelated things like child abuse. They're all bad imo and that's not on. If I'm sure on one thing in this thread, it's that I am totally against having a negative influence on children.
Should have said I purchase alcohol and cigarettes and I'm under 18.
Curse. Not a big fan of EtOH tbh...or agonists at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors...
LOL LOVE THIS HAHAHA
-
Cancer isn't the only health issue with cigarettes, but it is probably the biggest one (and by cancer, I'm including emphysema and other forms of lung disease).
It is true that cigarettes are likely to cause damage to your body in other smaller ways (such as yellow teeth, broken nails, constant coughing and reeking of tobacco), but long-term use of any "medium" drug will do that. It's nowhere near as bad as the hard drugs such as crack cocaine, meth, heroin or ice.
You can't overdose on tobacco and most people that quit within a year are able to recover almost completely (though it can be very hard to quit after several months of use).
I'm not saying that tobacco isn't dangerous, nor am I saying that the odds are in your favour, but heaps of other things such as diabetes or binge drinking can be just as detrimental to your health. The government emphasises how bad cigarettes are, above all other substances, but not enough effort goes into convincing people to eat healthily, warning them about the symptoms of diabetes or obesity. Same with binge drinking: there should be more advertising campaigns to warn people of the dangers of binge drinking.
-
It's nowhere near as bad as the hard drugs such as crack cocaine, meth, heroin or ice.
There's a reason why those are illegal ;)
You can't overdose on tobacco and most people that quit within a year are able to recover almost completely (though it can be very hard to quit after several months of use).
Whilst you can't overdose, you don't "recover". Your lungs (to take an example) are not going to fix themselves in most instances, this is permanent and stays for life, much like alcohol abuse will contribute to permanent liver damage. It's a risk factor and doesn't have to involve continuous exposure to contribute to likelihood of the development of the aforementioned health risks.
but heaps of other things such as diabetes or binge drinking can be just as detrimental to your health.
Agreed with binge drinking, but diabetes? Really? People are born with diabetes too. Furthermore, natural aging is a major risk factor for diabetes (to take type 2 as an example), not sure how that relates at all to the topic... The reason this thread is focusing on smoking regulations is because the first post including a link to an article regarding smoking. That's the discussion topic, saying other things are of arguably the same risk or even higher isn't adding to the discussion (more side-tracking it) :)
The reason why smoking is of particular importance is that it COMPOUNDS nearly every major illness, from cancer to influenza to heart disease, and proposing a solution to this is important for society in the government's eyes.
[offtopic] Obesity is very important too, and its being worked on although much more could and should be done - but you'd probably see that as "nanny state" stuff: "How dare the government interrupt my TV programming by telling me that what I'm eating is going to kill me sooner! How dare they tax my McDonalds! I HAVE FREEDOM TO EAT WHAT I WANT! I DON'T CARE IF I'M A BAD INFLUENCE FOR MY KIDS, GIVE ME MY BURGER DAMMIT, and a small Coke too while you're at it actually." etc etc... [/offtopic]
Health awareness is to be applauded, not dismissed as trivial and political.
not enough effort goes into convincing people to eat healthily, warning them about the symptoms of diabetes or obesity.
More could be done, I agree, but you'd be surprised how much there actually is. Maybe not in specific reference to diabetes, but there isn't much positive perception of obesity in the community.
On another note, not sure why you guys are bringing Mao into it. He wasn't born after the year 2000 nor is he living in Tasmania, so stop attacking his smoking, and please focus on the issue as per the article, focus on the kids who would be affected by this.
(and don't attack the moderation team, this is not the view of everyone, this is a discussion with each member posting their own stance using their own language style. Keep that in mind)
-
I must say: although I am against what the government is doing in Tasmania, it could be a lot worse. The "2000 onwards" rule is a pretty good way to slowly criminalise tobacco without having to infringe upon the current rights of others. After all, people are more likely to protest if they were once given an opportunity that has now been taken away than if they were never given it in the first place. This method of allowing current smokers to continue but not allowing future smokers (except for those who are close to becoming future smokers and are probably already thinking about it) seems to be the best approach to criminalise tobacco.
Even so, I still stand by my point that I would rather give everyone the right to choose tobacco but convince people not to, than not give them the choice in the first place.
-
Even so, I still stand by my point that I would rather give everyone the right to choose tobacco but convince people not to, than not give them the choice in the first place.
Can you give a reason for this other than simply "anti-nanny state or freedom of choice etc"? I'm not attacking you, just curious to see the logic behind it, and some specific logic that isn't the generalised responses.
Personally, I find that smoking has 0 positive benefits for anyone but tobacco companies. There are no health benefits for the smoker, those around them, those watching them smoke (role models again), the healthcare system, families who'll have to care for a loved one diagnosed with cancer which has been exacerbated by smoking, etc etc. To me, I can't see a reason why it should be there, of course, the influences it has on others by far outweigh those on the individual imo, but both are entwined to an extent too.
I mean, it's fine as a smoker to say when they are young and fit that they are willing to face the risks and consequences in the future. But I can't believe that. I can't believe, that if they are 60 and have metastasis of lung cancer and are lying in a hospital bed with their weeping family around them, that they wouldn't have a shred of regret for taking up smoking in their teens, that they wish that maybe "I shouldn't have taken that macho rebellious stance in my youth". Risk taking only goes so far before it delves into loss of common sense.
Just my view though, and I feel it'll be ripped apart :/ I guess what really puzzles me is the mindset of smokers. Do they do it just because they can? I, unless I'm missing something obvious, can't see why they'd want to smoke with all the risks for themselves and others.
-
OK, just felt compelled to reply one more time (I'll try not to take this thread off-topic anymore). Firstly, I'd like to apologise to enwibee - my last post was out of order, I do respect the fact that you do all this to help students, but maybe you can see why I wrote what I did.
All I've done is voice my (admittedly strong) opinions here, this is an issue I do feel very strongly about. However, I'm quite certain I only ever attacked what I believe to be the fallacious logic in other people's arguments, I never targeted a specific person; the worst I said was that some people need to 'get over themselves', I never told anyone to get fucked. And as thushan has noted, the last comment on my first post was tongue-in cheek, I didn't think it could be any more obvious that what I said wasn't serious; I'm not that stupid. Yet in response, because one of the mods disagrees with what I've said, I get one mod telling me and my sentiments to get fucked, another referring to me as a 'disgusting' and 'cowardly' person, as well as twisting my words to make it sound like I've wished for one of his friends to die, and a third mod telling me that I'm a fucking moron - really an excellent message to send out for your site, especially when your sig says 'do not hesitate to voice your opinions, comments or concerns.' And thus you were pretty much asking for me to retaliate with an equally derogatory reply.
And while we're on the subject of tooting one's horn about helping others, I joined this site with the intention of having a positive impact upon my fellow vce cohort, if I wanted to be a 'greedy little piggy' and leech off the notes and advice here, why would I even bother making an account? In the short time I've been here I've offered my honest and genuine advice on a couple of subjects, as well as providing study score and essay writing advice (I've won numerous literacy and essay writing prizes throughout high school and have a number of friends who have achieved study scores of 45-50 in eng, eng lang and lit, so my advice isn't exactly useless). I critiqued an essay I was sent despite not receiving a single word of thanks, and would happily do it again, even approaching exam period. All I can say is that I'm honestly disappointed that the owners of this site would gang up on a single person like this because they disagreed with their opinion over a controversial issue. And @nina, no I am not writing this because I cannot think of an argument, I am writing it because clearly the whole thread has gotten a lot more personal than its original debate and become a separate issue unto itself.
Way off-topic but needed to be said. inb4 tl;dr
-
2. People need to differentiate between "hard" drugs and "soft" drugs. For example, marijuana and LSD are soft drugs, heroin, meth, crack and ice are hard drugs and ecstasy, tobacco and alcohol are medium drugs. I think that all soft drugs should be legalised, all medium drugs should be legalised but moderated (such as advertising limits and where they can be used) and all hard drugs, especially intravenous (IV) recreational drugs, should remain illegal.
Do you have any particular reason for this completely arbitrary division?
3. Drugs don't directly "cause" people to do bad things. They can alter your mind and make decisions harder for you, but there is always a choice aspect to it. When I am drunk, I choose not to drive home. I also choose not to start fights or act "drunk and disorderly" out on the streets. If a person takes a drug and then commits a crime, then the person is responsible, not the drug.
That's because your consciousness isn't sufficiently impaired yet when you choose not to drive. There's a reason the new drug driving campaign has the slogan "you're out of your mind"
Just my view though, and I feel it'll be ripped apart :/ I guess what really puzzles me is the mindset of smokers. Do they do it just because they can? I, unless I'm missing something obvious, can't see why they'd want to smoke with all the risks for themselves and others.
Young adults, especially young males think they're immortal. We all do things that aren't that smart, but sound interesting/fun/cool/desirable etc. For some people, that's smoking and when they decide to quit, it's generally too difficult.
-
alexa94, I do not take back nor regret my moron comment. Anybody that replies to an argument with "yeah well you have no life!!!!" is an idiot. Like I said, I was on your side until you resorted to these tactics.
The moderation team is entitled to their own opinions. Are we not members as well? Either stop being such a princess about it, or find a another forum where mods are forced to undergo self-censorship (good luck - I have been on many forums and every single one allows mods to speak their mind, because, ya know, we're all people).
-
Even so, I still stand by my point that I would rather give everyone the right to choose tobacco but convince people not to, than not give them the choice in the first place.
Can you give a reason for this other than simply "anti-nanny state or freedom of choice etc"? I'm not attacking you, just curious to see the logic behind it, and some specific logic that isn't the generalised responses.
Personally, I find that smoking has 0 positive benefits for anyone but tobacco companies. There are no health benefits for the smoker, those around them, those watching them smoke (role models again), the healthcare system, families who'll have to care for a loved one diagnosed with cancer which has been exacerbated by smoking, etc etc. To me, I can't see a reason why it should be there, of course, the influences it has on others by far outweigh those on the individual imo, but both are entwined to an extent too.
I mean, it's fine as a smoker to say when they are young and fit that they are willing to face the risks and consequences in the future. But I can't believe that. I can't believe, that if they are 60 and have metastasis of lung cancer and are lying in a hospital bed with their weeping family around them, that they wouldn't have a shred of regret for taking up smoking in their teens, that they wish that maybe "I shouldn't have taken that macho rebellious stance in my youth". Risk taking only goes so far before it delves into loss of common sense.
Just my view though, and I feel it'll be ripped apart :/ I guess what really puzzles me is the mindset of smokers. Do they do it just because they can? I, unless I'm missing something obvious, can't see why they'd want to smoke with all the risks for themselves and others.
I think you're forgetting that smoking is pleasurable for most people who regularly smoke. Smokers enjoy smoking, in the same way you enjoy Physics and I enjoy watching films. I'd agree that smoking is irrational, but people are irrational, people drink too much, eat too much etc. yet I don't think the government should ban alcohol or fast food any more they should ban cigarettes.
I think realistically, if cigarettes were banned there would be a large black market for them. One without any taxation or regulation, and for me, that's a scenario that scares me far more than the current situation.
-
To be fair, I also read the free cigarettes comment as tongue-in-cheek. I guess it's yet another warning of the dangers of sarcasm on the Internet?
-
OK, just felt compelled to reply one more time (I'll try not to take this thread off-topic anymore). Firstly, I'd like to apologise to enwibee - my last post was out of order, I do respect the fact that you do all this to help students, but maybe you can see why I wrote what I did.
All I've done is voice my (admittedly strong) opinions here, this is an issue I do feel very strongly about. However, I'm quite certain I only ever attacked what I believe to be the fallacious logic in other people's arguments, I never targeted a specific person; the worst I said was that some people need to 'get over themselves', I never told anyone to get fucked. And as thushan has noted, the last comment on my first post was tongue-in cheek, I didn't think it could be any more obvious that what I said wasn't serious; I'm not that stupid. Yet in response, because one of the mods disagrees with what I've said, I get one mod telling me and my sentiments to get fucked, another referring to me as a 'disgusting' and 'cowardly' person, as well as twisting my words to make it sound like I've wished for one of his friends to die, and a third mod telling me that I'm a fucking moron - really an excellent message to send out for your site, especially when your sig says 'do not hesitate to voice your opinions, comments or concerns.' And thus you were pretty much asking for me to retaliate with an equally derogatory reply.
And while we're on the subject of tooting one's horn about helping others, I joined this site with the intention of having a positive impact upon my fellow vce cohort, if I wanted to be a 'greedy little piggy' and leech off the notes and advice here, why would I even bother making an account? In the short time I've been here I've offered my honest and genuine advice on a couple of subjects, as well as providing study score and essay writing advice (I've won numerous literacy and essay writing prizes throughout high school and have a number of friends who have achieved study scores of 45-50 in eng, eng lang and lit, so my advice isn't exactly useless). I critiqued an essay I was sent despite not receiving a single word of thanks, and would happily do it again, even approaching exam period. All I can say is that I'm honestly disappointed that the owners of this site would gang up on a single person like this because they disagreed with their opinion over a controversial issue. And @nina, no I am not writing this because I cannot think of an argument, I am writing it because clearly the whole thread has gotten a lot more personal than its original debate and become a separate issue unto itself.
Way off-topic but needed to be said. inb4 tl;dr
tl;dr what is taking personal responsibility for my actions???
-
Smokers enjoy smoking, in the same way you enjoy Physics
You can tell that TheMirrorMan hasn't been on atarnotes for very long haha
-
alexa94, I do not take back nor regret my moron comment. Anybody that replies to an argument with "yeah well you have no life!!!!" is an idiot. Like I said, I was on your side until you resorted to these tactics.
The moderation team is entitled to their own opinions. Are we not members as well? Either stop being such a princess about it, or find a another forum where mods are forced to undergo self-censorship (good luck - I have been on many forums and every single one allows mods to speak their mind, because, ya know, we're all people).
Like I said, it was a stupid comment, but it was only said in retaliation after I felt I was being unfairly targeted. And from my viewpoint, I think that's hardly as bad as falsely accusing someone of wishing for the death of another individual.
I'm a princess because I choose to defend myself from personal attacks rather than change my stance like a p*ssy? Ok. Also this is a forum primarily designed to help high school students, this is not the misc, so I don't know why so many people have to put up the tough guy act.
OK, just felt compelled to reply one more time (I'll try not to take this thread off-topic anymore). Firstly, I'd like to apologise to enwibee - my last post was out of order, I do respect the fact that you do all this to help students, but maybe you can see why I wrote what I did.
All I've done is voice my (admittedly strong) opinions here, this is an issue I do feel very strongly about. However, I'm quite certain I only ever attacked what I believe to be the fallacious logic in other people's arguments, I never targeted a specific person; the worst I said was that some people need to 'get over themselves', I never told anyone to get fucked. And as thushan has noted, the last comment on my first post was tongue-in cheek, I didn't think it could be any more obvious that what I said wasn't serious; I'm not that stupid. Yet in response, because one of the mods disagrees with what I've said, I get one mod telling me and my sentiments to get fucked, another referring to me as a 'disgusting' and 'cowardly' person, as well as twisting my words to make it sound like I've wished for one of his friends to die, and a third mod telling me that I'm a fucking moron - really an excellent message to send out for your site, especially when your sig says 'do not hesitate to voice your opinions, comments or concerns.' And thus you were pretty much asking for me to retaliate with an equally derogatory reply.
And while we're on the subject of tooting one's horn about helping others, I joined this site with the intention of having a positive impact upon my fellow vce cohort, if I wanted to be a 'greedy little piggy' and leech off the notes and advice here, why would I even bother making an account? In the short time I've been here I've offered my honest and genuine advice on a couple of subjects, as well as providing study score and essay writing advice (I've won numerous literacy and essay writing prizes throughout high school and have a number of friends who have achieved study scores of 45-50 in eng, eng lang and lit, so my advice isn't exactly useless). I critiqued an essay I was sent despite not receiving a single word of thanks, and would happily do it again, even approaching exam period. All I can say is that I'm honestly disappointed that the owners of this site would gang up on a single person like this because they disagreed with their opinion over a controversial issue. And @nina, no I am not writing this because I cannot think of an argument, I am writing it because clearly the whole thread has gotten a lot more personal than its original debate and become a separate issue unto itself.
Way off-topic but needed to be said. inb4 tl;dr
tl;dr what is taking personal responsibility for my actions???
Just a reminder to everyone not to take life too seriously. (Unless it's being drowned in second-hand smoke).
Also, to reiterate my stance on the issue: I'm in favour of the government restricting smoking in all public places (or providing sealed off smoking rooms), but seeing as I've never heard off this law being implemented, if they feel that slowly phasing out cigarettes is more suitable, then I am all for it. Basically, it comes down to the fact that yes, some smokers are respectful and won't blow their smoke in my face. But in reality, it's obviously nothing like that outside; even as a waiter at a cafe I constantly have to inhale second-hand smoke when serving/cleaning up the outside tables. No one has the right to choose for you? Well no one has the right to infringe on my health.
Also it seems that some drugs considered 'hard' are actually not as bad for you as tobacco or alcohol? Intriguing, it's new to me but I will do some research
-
"change my stance like a p*ssy"
That there is the kind of intransigence which suggests your mind is resistive to any sort of change. I can't tell you how many stances of mine I've changed because I've considered new evidence and arguments presented by others. You're basically saying "I have every right to my ignorant opinions, and if you don't like it, then stuff you!"
You just don't want any criticism of your views ever. Tough luck, this is a public forum and it's going to happen. And if you're smart, you will consider when you are wrong, or when you've made a stupid comment, and adjust your views accordingly.
-
You're basically saying "I have every right to my ignorant opinions, and if you don't like it, then stuff you!"
Anyone find it ironic that there perfectly describes mao's response to me... Look mate, I've offered my apologies, I don't know what more you want - again, using hyperbole to attack me isn't exactly portraying the best image for your site (company?).
I am not resistant to changing my sentiments, just look at my last post. And I know the first thing you will say is 'yeah you just added that on after reading my post', well no, I was in the process of editing it when you coincidentally posted at the same time. Notice how I didn't yet have a chance to reply about the posts mentioning that some 'hard' drugs are not as bad as widely thought? That's because I've been taking time to research this, I did not simply retort back saying 'no you're wrong.'
I am, however, resistant to changing my stance when someone tells me to get fucked and then provides me with an argument that does not possess a shred of logic, instead just attacking my perceived morality the entire time. Likewise, I don't think I'll be changing my stance anytime soon when someone refers to smokers as being the 'victims'.
-
-closes thread if i could-
-
-closes thread if i could-
good idea